> The UK was spoken of in the particular because ... > Countries like Portugal and the Netherlands simply don't have that history ... Totally fair! But then y

> The UK was spoken of in the particular because ... > Countries like Portugal and the Netherlands simply don't have that history ... Totally fair! But then you (or whoever made the point) can't drag in the US and Vietnam war or World War II into this and drum up some random body count and try to use that as a main point, nor can you bring up "global systems of inequality" and simultaneously try to limit additional discussion around an Iran context when we start talking about, well, global inequality and how other countries are huge contributors to that. > "Bad behaviour" is your terminology. We're talking about why they have sanctions imposed on them. I'm not following the distinction here. The reasons sanctions are imposed on them is because of their bad behavior. They're killing people in the region, trying to build nuclear weapons which we won't tolerate, and have been building up this capability to hold global oil supply hostage less they have some concessions that they want. > No-one else was talking about this but you, and it feels like it was only raised in an attempt to undermine genuine concerns about legacy issues. We're not speaking about historical facts for the sake of historical facts. You and others are speaking about why Iran is justified in some action, so it's fair to point out how those facts are weaponized. Since you are doing that, it's fair game to also explain how those past injustices (which themselves are complicated and nuanced in ways that nobody here is discussing) are used by Iran and other authoritarian regimes to create external enemies to maintain power. This is extremely well understood.